The applicant could not address himself to the social services or the public prosecutor. Although payphones existed, their number was clearly insufficient.

The Court is of the view that these arguments are closely linked to the merits of the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

    Merits 57.     The applicant argued that the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment was enshrined both in the Polish Constitution and the Convention.

Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to join it to the merits of the complaint and will address it subsequently. 44.

    The Court considers that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely related to the merits of the complaint, and therefore joins the Government’s objection to the merits. 32

    Merits 1.     Alleged ill-treatment by the police 49.

Merits The parties’ submissions 31.

    The Court observes that the remedies referred to by the Government were merely of a retrospective character.

    The applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1).

Further consideration is required regarding how best to address the risk factors in this case and the investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr McCabe’s suspension from the pre-release scheme

The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ).

It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1). 6.

    The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.

The applicant kept record of names, telephone numbers and addresses of some 80 women.

Nielsen, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 October 2003, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits

    The Chamber having decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine ), the parties replied in writing to each other’s observations.

More specifically, the Court must address the question whether the applicant’s doubts, stemming from the specific circumstances, may be regarded as objectively justified in the circumstances of the case

Merits The parties’ submissions 36.     The applicant maintained his claim that he had been unfairly convicted on the basis of evidence which had not been heard directly by the court.

The applicant did not address this issue. 36.     The Court observes that the remedies referred to by the Government were merely of a retrospective character.